Hopes for Dragon Age III

[Knight Templar]

i don't care about justification or rationality, it's a pure blind rage without logic.

The sad thing is that's a very common responce, minus the self awareness.

 

[Chris Tian]

But I agree, going full open-world might be a bad idea. BioWare has just no experience with that, and it's not that easy to do - just ask Bethesda. I'd rather have them focussing on getting combat and story right.

Oh god that would be SUCH a bad, bad, bad idea. They really should stick to their strong suit. I mean a little more exploration and less "narrow" level design would be nice and definitly doable, but trying to go Skyrim-style open world would go full on Hindenburg. They should remember what their meat and potatoes (characters and storytelling) was, and concentrate on that. Additionally figure out where they want to go with the combat, tactical or action, and optimize it according to that.

I never get that, shouldn't it be a bigger risk, from a buisness perspective, to try to copy a successful product you know nothing about and doen't have a consumer base for, than to stick to your own successful product you are well known for?

 

[Odbarc]

I am currently replaying the Dragon Age games and while i still love Dragon Age: Origins as much as ever, my opinion of Dragon Age 2 changed a bit during my second time playing it.
Originally it was a massive disappointment and while it still cant hold a candle to DA:O, now i have fun playing it.

What brings me to the topic i want to talk about: What are you expecting from Dragon Age 3?

I, for one am mildly hopefull and here is why:

First off: I think the root of most of the shortcoming of DA2 is that they rushed it out in like less than half the time they should have taken to develop it properly. But it has the bones of a good game, they just paintet them pink instead of fleshing them out and hoped nobody would notice. And it seems they won't repeat that mistake with DA3.

Secondly: In my opinion DA2 isn't such a bad game on its own, its greatest failure is being worse than its predecessor and failing everyones expectations. Like I said, i think it hat some good parts that just would have needed polishing (and balancing in case of the combat).

Thirdly: Another big shortcoming was completely avoidable, and that is the super awkwardly paced mess of three unrelated main-storylines. I will never understand why they did this, it makes no sense. You have the perfect setting for the main conflict, mages vs. templars, right from the start. Either you or your sister are a apostate in a city de facto ruled by templars. They could have hurled Hawke right in the middle of that conflict. Why wait two boring acts to kick that off?

And last but not least, i am a very optimistic guy

So, your thoughts?

I'm playing it on the PC instead of console and I find it's actually quite enjoyable for some odd reason. Maybe it's that my taste in games has changed, but I can't seem to put it down now.

For the third game... I'd like to predestine my class specialty as the starting narrative.

 

[CloudAtlas]

I know I'm no moderator, and not even the OP, but:

Please don't rant about the ME3 ending here beyond the extent to which it is relevant for Dragon Age 3. But if you really really must, at least please watch your language and show some moderation. There are many people who are as smart and educated as you are, and care as much about storytelling as you do, and liked the ending. I do not want to hide that I am one of them, and every time I read such a rant, it's itching in my fingers to write a reply, but that would derail the thread completely.*

I know it's a forum and so you shouldn't expect much, but I found this threat to be quite enjoyable and remarkably civilized so far, despite people having very different opinions about Dragon Age.

~

* I wouldn't have to do it myself anyway: http://badassdigest.com/2012/08/06/film-crit-hulk-smash-a-few-words-on-the-ending-of-mass-effect-3/

 

[Glaice]

I'd prefer if they work on a new, original IP than churning out sequels to a series ruined by it turned into a mindless action hack-n-slash.

 

[Sigmund Av Volsung]

Potential because, first and foremost, the game seems to be about the mages vs. templars conflict. This can make for a much more original, interesting story than your generic "save the world from evil" story that plagued Dragon Age: Origins. The big theme, freedom vs. security. Moral ambiguity. No good vs. evil conflict.

It's Bioware.

There will be no/very little moral ambiguity, even in games where they built a system in which "no really, there is no good or bad choice", they still fucked up and watered it down to good vs. evil(Jade Empire).

I stopped caring about their moral choice systems, and instead I want to have an epic adventure, like I did with Mass Effect.

Oh, but they can keep the combat from DAII, god knows I hate the DA:O MMO-style combat because of how slow and unnatural it feels.

 

[DarkhoIlow]

I would like to see the Grey Warden return and preffered if Hawke wasn't going to be in the third game, although I think he/she will.

Less action`y gameplay from DA2 and more party based battles from DAO.

Other than that, from what I've seen thus far it seems I will enjoy it. Time will tell.

 

[CloudAtlas]

Potential because, first and foremost, the game seems to be about the mages vs. templars conflict. This can make for a much more original, interesting story than your generic "save the world from evil" story that plagued Dragon Age: Origins. The big theme, freedom vs. security. Moral ambiguity. No good vs. evil conflict.

It's Bioware.

There will be no/very little moral ambiguity, even in games where they built a system in which "no really, there is no good or bad choice", they still fucked up and watered it down to good vs. evil(Jade Empire).

I stopped caring about their moral choice systems, and instead I want to have an epic adventure, like I did with Mass Effect.

Oh, but they can keep the combat from DAII, god knows I hate the DA:O MMO-style combat because of how slow and unnatural it feels.

But there is moral ambiguity in a many BioWare games. It might not always be executed well, but it exists. In Dragon Age: Origins, you find it everywhere (Spoilers galore). Is it right to imprison mages? Is it right to make templars to drug addicts? Is it right to use blood magic in some circumstances? Which dwarven faction of Orzimmar is better for the dwarves? How should you deal with the followers of the Qun? Does Sten deserve being given a chance for atonement? Is right to not tell Grey Warden recruits about the negative consequences of becoming a Grey Warden? Should you help out each and everyone with their problems even though you have a bigger task to do? What about the Dalish Elves and the Werewolves? Should you let some douche allow to rape a couple of women because killing him might have dire consequences for your people? Do you accept Morrigan's "offer"? Is it right to use the Hammer of the Deeps or what it was called?
And, generally, you have many opportunities to show mercy if you so desire.

Mass Effect is no different. Should you cure the genophage? Do you side with the Geth or with the Quarians? Do you spare the Rachni? Do you reprogramm the rogue Geth or kill them? Which choice does Shepard make at the end of all things? They are all morally very different. The Illusive Man is a very ambiguous character. And the list goes on... I just remember Dragon Age better because I played it more recently.

The Star Wars games and Jade empire I haven't played, can't comment on that, and regarding Baldur's Gate II... there were some choices you can make too, but I don't remember that all too well anymore, so I better remain silent.

 

[Chris Tian]

Potential because, first and foremost, the game seems to be about the mages vs. templars conflict. This can make for a much more original, interesting story than your generic "save the world from evil" story that plagued Dragon Age: Origins. The big theme, freedom vs. security. Moral ambiguity. No good vs. evil conflict.

It's Bioware.

There will be no/very little moral ambiguity, even in games where they built a system in which "no really, there is no good or bad choice", they still fucked up and watered it down to good vs. evil(Jade Empire).

I stopped caring about their moral choice systems, and instead I want to have an epic adventure, like I did with Mass Effect.

Oh, but they can keep the combat from DAII, god knows I hate the DA:O MMO-style combat because of how slow and unnatural it feels.

But there is moral ambiguity in a many BioWare games. It might not always be executed well, but it exists. In Dragon Age: Origins, you find it everywhere (Spoilers galore). Is it right to imprison mages? Is it right to make templars to drug addicts? Is it right to use blood magic in some circumstances? Which dwarven faction of Orzimmar is better for the dwarves? How should you deal with the followers of the Qun? Does Sten deserve being given a chance for atonement? Is right to not tell Grey Warden recruits about the negative consequences of becoming a Grey Warden? Should you help out each and everyone with their problems even though you have a bigger task to do? What about the Dalish Elves and the Werewolves? Should you let some douche allow to rape a couple of women because killing him might have dire consequences for your people? Do you accept Morrigan's "offer"? Is it right to use the Hammer of the Deeps or what it was called?
And, generally, you have many opportunities to show mercy if you so desire.

Mass Effect is no different. Should you cure the genophage? Do you side with the Geth or with the Quarians? Do you spare the Rachni? Do you reprogramm the rogue Geth or kill them? Which choice does Shepard make at the end of all things? They are all morally very different. The Illusive Man is a very ambiguous character. And the list goes on... I just remember Dragon Age better because I played it more recently.

The Star Wars games and Jade empire I haven't played, can't comment on that, and regarding Baldur's Gate II... there were some choices you can make too, but I don't remember that all too well anymore, so I better remain silent.

You have a point with all those choices/dilemma you mention, but i always feel bioware presents them very black and white-ish, there is mostly one option the games clearly favor.

What DA2 did right, and better than Origins, was the characters and character interactions. Hell, that was mainly what allowed me to slog through the slow and irrelevant first act and disjointed third act as well as the terrible combat. Anders was god awful though, whoever was in charge of writing him in DA2 should have more oversight in the future if not outright fired.

I actually liked the characters and interactions in both games very much.
Exept for Anders, i totally agree with you there. I could have lived with him if he wouldn't be a must-have for every party setup, unless your Hawke is a healer. I mean if a companion will be essential for 90% of all playthroughs, it would be nice if he's not so annoying that i want to ff-kill him all the time just so he shuts up.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Wow, a multi-quote, anti-elitist wall of text, that no-one on this board will be bothered to read.

The fuck do I care? This isn't Shakespeare in the park. I was quoting you under the assumption that YOU would read it. And you did! Hurray!

Wonderful post. For someone of your age you seem to be unaware that your reply turned this into a private conversation descending rapidly into the dreary world of semantics, and off topic.

Oh no, semantics! You know that semantics have a purpose, of course? To divine meaning and connotation? If the connotation of your statement is that you are affecting an air of superiority, calling attention to it is giving you an opportunity to refine and clarify your statement. Pointing out straw men and hyperbole isn't really semantics, it's basic logic and critical thinking skills, but let's assume those are "dreary" as well. Shall we package this up under a general rule of "How Dare You Question Me, I Am Chainguns"?

You decided to read elitism into that ("sneering disdain", "true scotsman" etc) and go all ad-hominem in a fabulous tirade of semantics

Oh no, semantics!

Did I do an ad-hominem? I kind of doubt it, but let's check...

NOPE. For heavens SAKE, what is with this forum and ad hominem? It takes 2 seconds on google to figure out what an ad hominem is. It's not short hand for "I didn't like what you said".

The closest thing we have to an ad hominem in this discussion is this:

so even though you are unworthy

And you're obviously being facetious.

...eloquently proving that forum-abbreviated generalizations are not 100% accurate.

Then why do it? You went on to later demonstrate you're perfectly capable of making a competent argument. Why be lazy? Why do the "argle bargle graphics" thing? Why make the EXTREMELY tiresome "everything is a COD clone" remark, when "everything" is very evidently not? You made a snooty post, and then got aggrieved when I pointed at it and called it snooty. The easier, less DREARY solution would have just been to not make a snooty post to begin with.

Funnily enough, I do think that good games are those that align with my tastes. Duh?

Why is that a duh moment? It never occurred to me that the limit of my personal tastes was the limit of quality. I'm not sure why that would occur to you. Or anyone, for that matter.

As for the "games of every variety available" - I was talking AAA, and I dare say you knew that.

How would I know that? How do we even define what is AAA and what is simply AA? We had a hell of a time doing that in another thread on the subject.

And you do realize that clarifying this point qualifies as semantics, right? Dreary! This clarification for the sake of understanding is SO DULL. I'd rather make wild guesses!

I know there is variety in the indie market and kickstarter is doing great (I have pumped >$400 into KS so far), but it would be nice to say a better than 90:10 action:nonaction split in AAA. Last year we got ... xcom, this year Rome II, possibly Europa Universalis IV. Now count the reflex- based games this year. PS the 90:10 is forum-speak, if the exact ratio is 87:13, please feel free to call "hyperbole" again and launch another wall of angry text.

Jesus christ, neither one of us is going to sit here and COUNT GAMES, but...oh wait, here's a list. Fuck it, I don't even know what half these games are, they're off platform. I need to stick to PC. Another HOMM expansion just got launched, was that an action game? What about HOTS, do you consider that an action game? The Sims expansion and (cough, gag) SimCity? Cities in Motion...Defiance...I guess Defiance is actiony, although it's technically an MMORPG (and a bad one by all accounts)...TOR expansion...AOE2HD (what was the point of an HD expansion to a 10+ year old RTS?). There's some shit I don't know in there. Like, I have no idea what "A World of Kelflings" is. There's a couple of actiony games here...most notably Tomb Raider and Bioshock Infinite. But show me the COD clone. Show me the Muslim shootin' game. Because I'm not seeing it.

Re "damn those people" (hair physics and cutscenes) just look at the shape and state of the AAA market. People buy what they like ('guided' by the hype machinery like the escapist), publishers make more of what they like.

Why can't they be guided by their tastes? Or by market research? I'm assuming that's what guides YOUR decisions, right? Why is the assumption automatically that other people are hype blinded buffoons?

I look at this and observe that "people" want good graphics, shooting Russians/Muslims and little or nothing asked of them. If you look at the game shelf of your Walmart or Tesco and come to a different conclusion, then let's hear it.

I buy all my games off digital distribution and have since...I'm going to say 2010. Who buys games from Walmart? I think I already made a snarky comment about the foolishness of using the shelf at Walmart as a barometer for ANYTHING.

But don't rail against elitism and don't *sugggest* that a phrase containing the word "people", "gamers" /whatever broad brush term is inaccurate or mostly made up, by default. Because then we end up in boring, thread killing walls of text like your post and this one now.

Well, I'll tell you what I find boring. I find people using hyperbole or sweeping generalizations to make tired, easily debunkable arguments boring. I actually found looking through the 2013 releases and trying to figure out the action/non-action split vaguely educational and interesting. Perhaps you are wired differently. You seem to have a mortal hatred of semantics, we've established that much. Perhaps you'd prefer to drift through a thread, make a few sniffy comments about what "those people" might prefer, and then wander away without some needling oppositional statement popping up in your inbox. Different strokes for different folks. If that's the case, there's probably a mechanism to disable notifications when you get quoted.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

Laidlaw already said combat will be fast (exact words were "not lardy style like Origins"), so seems like you should be happy.

Good, I'm glad. Laidlaw looks to be on the same page with that, because I wholly agree with his "lardy style" interpretation of Origins. I want my characters too look like they are fighting not slowly and playfully reenacting or cuddle fighting.

 

[votemarvel]

Laidlaw already said combat will be fast (exact words were "not lardy style like Origins"), so seems like you should be happy.

Good, I'm glad. Laidlaw looks to be on the same page with that, because I wholly agree with his "lardy style" interpretation of Origins. I want my characters too look like they are fighting not slowly and playfully reenacting or cuddle fighting.

Here's the weird thing.

Both games use the same combat.

Now don't get me wrong. The combat in Dragon Age II looks a lot better, the animations and special effects are brilliant, but it is still the exact same dice roll combat system as in Origins.

The hammering of a button in the console versions makes no difference to the damage you do, just set it to auto-attack and you'll be playing as if you were playing the first game, with the exception you now have a recharge timer on potions.

 

[Bombastuss]

Laidlaw already said combat will be fast (exact words were "not lardy style like Origins"), so seems like you should be happy.

Good, I'm glad. Laidlaw looks to be on the same page with that, because I wholly agree with his "lardy style" interpretation of Origins. I want my characters too look like they are fighting not slowly and playfully reenacting or cuddle fighting.

Here's the weird thing.

Both games use the same combat.

Now don't get me wrong. The combat in Dragon Age II looks a lot better, the animations and special effects are brilliant, but it is still the exact same dice roll combat system as in Origins.

The hammering of a button in the console versions makes no difference to the damage you do, just set it to auto-attack and you'll be playing as if you were playing the first game, with the exception you now have a recharge timer on potions.

I hope we get some middle ground between the two games.
The first one just looks sooooo slow most of the times but the second one is a wee bit over the top. Though I guess DA II does have a fairly good reason for it since the game is basically just Varric telling a story and he likes to exaggerate things somewhat.

Edit: Oh, and as for the original topic...

Not really sure what my hopes are. I really look forward to playing it at the very least. I had no real problems with DA II and I actually feel it did a few things better than the first game.
It still has it's flaws and DA:O is still the better game of the two but I honestly don't get all the hate for it.
But then I was poor when the game was actually released and didn't pick it up until like a year later.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

snip

Here's the weird thing.

Both games use the same combat.

Now don't get me wrong. The combat in Dragon Age II looks a lot better, the animations and special effects are brilliant, but it is still the exact same dice roll combat system as in Origins.

The hammering of a button in the console versions makes no difference to the damage you do, just set it to auto-attack and you'll be playing as if you were playing the first game, with the exception you now have a recharge timer on potions.

I don't know, it definitely looked like enemies were taking damage faster because of my main/basic attack in DA2. If it is the same speed wise in Origins, then they did a down right horrible job on attack animations, because I played a warrior in Origins this is how fast he swung his sword, bear in mind that you have to say each period at normal speed to show how long it took:

Swing . . hit . . . swing . . hit . . . (you get the point or period I should say)

Granted it is nit-picky, but for as much as an in depth fantasy RPG that people boast DA: Origins to be, it certainly didn't look like I was fighting like some great hero. It looked like I was fighting worse than a normal person that had just picked up a sword for the first time. The crappy looking combat is just one of the things that threw me off with the game, though it wasn't the only reason I couldn't keep playing after the first 25 hours.

I've swung a few real and weighted one handed swords in my life, and I at normal speed could swing at least 3 times faster than those animations in Origins.

Just by making things look more fluid and of course streamlining(not dumbing down) the abilities/leveling system, and making characters more likable with actually different personalities, is why I loved DA2 and was able to finish it twice. Origins may be some amazing RPG story and all, but I couldn't put up with the crap design and crap story choices I had problems with to get through it.

 

[gamernerdtg2]

I played through ME2 and DA2, without having the desire to go back play through DA Origins or pick up ME3.
I have no desire to play DA3 if that happens because the gameplay isn't all that great, and it's really about the story. You play for the story. I can watch the stories on YouTube.

I prefer games that are more engaging with the gameplay. I was totally hooked until I found out that the stories/romances can all be seen online for free.

 

[Chris Tian]

snip

Here's the weird thing.

Both games use the same combat.

Now don't get me wrong. The combat in Dragon Age II looks a lot better, the animations and special effects are brilliant, but it is still the exact same dice roll combat system as in Origins.

The hammering of a button in the console versions makes no difference to the damage you do, just set it to auto-attack and you'll be playing as if you were playing the first game, with the exception you now have a recharge timer on potions.

I don't know, it definitely looked like enemies were taking damage faster because of my main/basic attack in DA2. If it is the same speed wise in Origins, then they did a down right horrible job on attack animations, because I played a warrior in Origins this is how fast he swung his sword, bear in mind that you have to say each period at normal speed to show how long it took:

Swing . . hit . . . swing . . hit . . . (you get the point or period I should say)

I don't think votemarvel meant the combat is exactly the same, they just use the same "number crunching/dice roll" principle. Of course the combat was a lot faster in DA2, but it was basically the same as in DA:O just speeded up and with better animations.

I've swung a few real and weighted one handed swords in my life, and I at normal speed could swing at least 3 times faster than those animations in Origins.

I have actually some training with bladed weapons too, and a "real" (as real as you can get in training i should say) swordfight consists of maybe three cuts and two parades so games should definitely not come to close to that or you could finish every fight in DA3 combined in under half an hour

Except the combat in DA2 WAS dumbed down, they replaced the tactics from DAO with more action and it turned into a clusterfuck.

People played DAO because it was "lardy," people wanted an RPG that was a throw back to the DnD style turn based combat that earlier Bioware games had.

Bioware wanted to hit a larger audience so they made it more "action"ish, and failed miserably. People who want RPGs don't want an action game, they want a damn RPG.

I for one don't really care if its "lardy" tactical or action-ish, as long as its entertaining and well made.

I think that the combat felt dumbed down (in DA2) was a balancing issue. In DA:O you needed a Tank, a Healer, and two Damage Dealer in your party. You had to manage each one to do his job right to keep you party alive and the enemies dying. That was what gave the combat its depth and tactical challange, for me at least.
In DA2 they fucked that up by making damage king and having the mobs literally droping out of the sky.
Tanks are useless because you have way to much trouble drawing all the hate when the mobs can just appear everywhere on the map without warning, and they never reach the survivability they had in DA:O.
And since the game is fast paced and favors damage, it is possible and you are best of by killing everything so fast that it can't even dish out damage. That eliminates the need for a Healer.
So in the end you will most likely have a party of four Damage Dealers, and thus only manage one job four times. And that eliminates most of what made the combat fun. That its faster and action richer saved it for me for one playthrough, but after that it got a bit boring.

So all they have to do to combine, what i think are the best parts of both games(combat wise), is balance the system, so that you need to have a more diverse party again.

 

[Uncle Comrade]

I don't know, it definitely looked like enemies were taking damage faster because of my main/basic attack in DA2. If it is the same speed wise in Origins, then they did a down right horrible job on attack animations, because I played a warrior in Origins this is how fast he swung his sword, bear in mind that you have to say each period at normal speed to show how long it took:

Swing . . hit . . . swing . . hit . . . (you get the point or period I should say)

Granted it is nit-picky, but for as much as an in depth fantasy RPG that people boast DA: Origins to be, it certainly didn't look like I was fighting like some great hero. It looked like I was fighting worse than a normal person that had just picked up a sword for the first time. The crappy looking combat is just one of the things that threw me off with the game, though it wasn't the only reason I couldn't keep playing after the first 25 hours.

I've swung a few real and weighted one handed swords in my life, and I at normal speed could swing at least 3 times faster than those animations in Origins.

For me it's the opposite. While I can't say I loved the combat in Origins, I much preferred it over DA:2, where everyone just stood in place repeating a series of jerky arm movements while they waited for their abilities to cool down. It's like military training in Kirkwall was someone saying "If you get attacked, just swing your sword up, across then down repeatedly and let them walk into it."

Combat may have been a slow in Origins, but it least I felt like my characters were fighting an enemy, not just practicing their Sword Gymnastics routine. Not to mention the way a mage's staff now requires some sort of baton-twirling movements in order to shoot magic.

OT: I'd like for DA:3 to be a happy medium between the best parts of Origins and 2. That's what I'd like. What we'll probably get is the unholy spawn of Mass Effect and Skyrim.

 

[Joccaren]

What do I want from Dragon Age 3?
1. Most importantly, a change in art style from 2. Dear god that was horrible. I remember the battle for Ostagar in Origins. Sure, it wasn't graphically amazing, it looked alright still at 1440p, but it wasn't OMFG GRAPHIX!!. It did, however, fit the tone of the game brilliantly. Dark, serious, gritty - to an extent of course. All things in moderation.
DA2... It felt like I was watching a really badly animated anime from some novice company in Japan. The undead were the worst offenders, basic Qunari second worst, Darkspawn third, Deep Roads 4th - ect. Undead... They looked like goofy ducks waddling into combat at a ridiculously accelerated speed. Basic Qunari just looked meh. Wow, fauns/satyrs. Never seen them before. And it didn't fit at all with the Origin's look of them. The Arishok looked badass, everything else was meh. Darkspawn... See complaints about undead, but not quite as bad. Deep Roads - they hurt my eyes to look at. It was just... No. With the Frostbyte 2 Engine they should be able to get high graphical fidelity, move away from the cel shaded DA2 style, and hopefully give a HD Origins style, 'cause that looked good.
2. a) Combat needs to be toned down from 2. No air dropped enemies. No bullshit combos with 8 ministun enemies and a general so your whole party is permastunned unless you run out the door and stand your tank still in it. Slow it down a bit, and have auto-attack on by default, and have it actually work. I don't mind the swirling mage staff so much, if its toned down a bit. Everything else just looks like amateur action swordfights in bad anime, where things are ridiculously over the top for no reason. More grounded would be nice.
2. b) Classes need to be better balanced so they're all useful, and you require different party makeups for different situations. Additionally rogues should not be your DPS assassin class straight off the bat. Utility class for checking traps, unlocking chests, setting traps and openning new areas - all of which there need to be more of too - with combat on the side, later specialising in more combat oriented classes. Also, more even party makeup. Not just one healer, for the love of god, give me some variety.
3. Level design needs to be largely improved. As said above, more traps, locked chests and hidden areas. Additionally no recycling areas, and more puzzles like at the Andraste place in Origins. Some more interactivity with the environment in general is needed really, and enemies need to be pre-placed in each level to be encountered by the party, rather than spawning in waves.
4. Customisation of party members. I get why they took it out - people didn't like having the character's default looks replaced with things that made them look odd. I don't care, it made the game a lot less interesting. A better crafting system would be nice too, and more interesting enchantments.
5. More dialogue options, and no dialogue wheel. The dialogue wheel was a stupid move, as was sacrificing dialogue choices for a voiced protagonist. We don't need Commander Shepard in the middle ages, we need an old school RPG character that we make, and if you need to sacrifice their voice for more lines of dialogue so be it. I'd rather have more options in what to say than have them all voiced. Additionally, telling me what each option will do is kinda cheating the roleplaying aspect. Seeing that one option is labelled good automatically colours my interpretation of how it will go down with the other person, whereas in Origins I made a joke with Alistair about being king and he was offended by it. In 2 that wouldn't have been possible as I would have seen it, and seen its negative connotation, and not been able to pick it. Also nice to be able to read exactly what I will say, rather than "Here's a general idea that is actually nothing like what you say".

More stuff I'd like, but I CBF typing it all up. I'll wait for this one to come through, likely skip it 'cause its crap [Knowing Bioware these days], and wait for Star Citizen to be released.

 

[Dendio]

After the one two punch of Dragon Age 2 and Mass Effect 3, I've kinda given up hope on Bioware as a whole. Maybe it'll be good. Hell, I WANT it to be good. But I'm not going to kid myself.

Mass effect 3 was great. Dragons age 2 had the skeleton of a great game. My main issue with DA2 was the underdeveloped romances, re-use of and overall lack of environments and the comparatively short overall game length/lack of re playability.

DA2 was still better than 80 percent of the industry imo, but other rpgs like witcher 2, mass effect 3 and even deus ex human revolution blow it out of the water

 

[Chris Tian]

4. Customisation of party members. I get why they took it out - people didn't like having the character's default looks replaced with things that made them look odd. I don't care, it made the game a lot less interesting.

I saw a video (dont have a link sorry) where they (some Bioware guy at some con) talked about this and it seemed like they will solve that pretty well, by making pieces of armor look different on each party member. So you have both customisation and distinct looks.

5. More dialogue options, and no dialogue wheel. The dialogue wheel was a stupid move, as was sacrificing dialogue choices for a voiced protagonist.

I think it's EXTREMLY unlikely that they will go back on that

and wait for Star Citizen to be released.

What is that? Haven't heard of it yet and if its your substitute for DA3 it might be interesting.

After the one two punch of Dragon Age 2 and Mass Effect 3, I've kinda given up hope on Bioware as a whole. Maybe it'll be good. Hell, I WANT it to be good. But I'm not going to kid myself.

Mass effect 3 was great. Dragons age 2 had the skeleton of a great game. My main issue with DA2 was the underdeveloped romances, re-use of and overall lack of environments and the comparatively short overall game length/lack of re playability.

DA2 was still better than 80 percent of the industry imo, but other rpgs like witcher 2, mass effect 3 and even deus ex human revolution blow it out of the water

I agree with your points that ME3 and DA2 were not bad games. And definitively not that bad as it would make me loose all faith in Bioware's abilities. I think they are still perfectly capable of producing great games. The question is will they use their capabilities to the fullest and create a great game with what their great at, or try to hit as many focus tested hot buttons as possible and most likely fail at that.